Neil Gorsuch was the lone dissenter in an 8-1 Supreme Court decision. Here's why he was right.
by Adam Carrington
| June 12, 2018 02:19 PM
When you stand alone, people can ascribe to you a range of qualities — brave, perceptive, crazy, or ignorant, among others. In the case of Sveen v. Melin, Justice Neil Gorsuch took on that role, acting as the lone dissenter in the 8-1 Supreme Court decision.
In his lonely stand, Gorsuch sought to breathe life into the Contracts Clause found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. That clause declares that no state shall pass a “law impairing the obligation of contracts.†These words once provided a potent protection to individual rights. The Framers intended it to keep state governments from passing laws that relieved persons from fulfilling what they contractually had agreed to do — a legal allowance to violate their word.
Such violations can wreak havoc and perpetuate injustice, for we live contractual lives. At least much of our actions and relationships involve some form of them. We enter into contracts regarding the clothes we buy, the hours we work, the food we purchase, even our marriages. By them we ensure that the way we agree to share our property with others (our money, our labor, our other commitments) is followed.
This clause did not eliminate any regulation of how we interact with each other contractually. The state still could and should set basic rules protecting against dangerous or inherently unjust contracts. But the basic rule cut through these allowances: when a valid contract created an obligation between parties, the state could not step in to violate those terms.
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/neil-gorsuch-made-the-right-call-in-sveen-v-melin
